^v 



\. 



EECOED 

OF THE 

TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS, IN THE MATTER OF 
THE INVESTIGATION, 

BY THE 

TRUSTEES 

OF TEE 

UMVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI, 

On the 1st and 2nd of March, 1860, 

■V/ OF THE 

CHARGES MADE BY EI. R. BRANETAM, 

AGAINST THE 

CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIYERSITY. 



JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI. 

PRINTED AT THE MISSBSIPPIAX OFFICE, .JACKBOtC, MXSA. 



1860. 



HVESTIGATIOI: 



At a called meeting of the Board of Trustees of the University of 
Mississippi, convoked by order of His Excellency J. J. Pettus, ex-ojjUcio 
President of the Board, at the town of Oxford, on the 1st day of 
March, 1860, there were present, of the Trustees : 

Hon. James M. Howry, Secretary of the Board, Hon. J. A, Ventres?, 
Hon. Isaac N. Davis, Hon. A. H. Pegues, Col. James Brown, Col. Geo, 
H. Young, Wm. F. Dowd, Esq., Hon. J. W. Clapp, Hon. Charles Clark, 
and Hon. Alex. M. Clayton. 

His Excellency, Gov. Pettus, not having arrived, on motion, the Hon, 
Alex. M. Clayton was elected as President j;ro te/npore. 

The following communication from Dr. F. A. P. Barnard, Chancel- 
lor of the University of Mississippi, was laid before the Board, aiudl 
read : 

University op Mississippi, February 29; I860. 

To the Honor able the Board of Trustees of the University of Mississippi :. 

Gentlemen : In a letter addressed to your President on the 2d 
instant, requesting him to assemble your honorable body in special 
session at the present time, I assigned, as a reason for the request, a 
condition of things, existing in the University, which rendered such a 
meeting, in my view, indispensable, at the earliest possible day. The 
object of this communication is to explain that state of things. 

Some time during the month of January, I became aware that 
charges had been repeatedly and publicly made against me, by Dr. 
Henry R. Branham, a citizen of Oxford, the tendency of which was to 
undermine me in the confidence of the people of the South, and thus, 
by injuring me, to affect very seriously the prosperit}'- of the Universit}'. 

These charges were never made in my presence, and, so long as they 
seemed not to menace serious harm, I treated them with little attention. 
Having at length learned what they were, or, at least, what some of 
them were, I authorized a friend to meet them with a denial. But this 
only provoked a reiteration of them with angry violence, which reitera- 
tion was accompanied by a citation of the names of several of my col- 
leagues in the Faculty, as authorities who would confirm their truth. 

In regard to a certain portion of the charges and specifications, other 
members of the Faculty besides myself ^ere implicated ; and by one of 
these the subject was brought before the body in session. During a dis- 
cussion which arose upon it, at a meeting held on the 2d instant, there 
was developed such a state of things as to satisfy me, that, without the 
interposition of the Board of Trustees, the ordinary business of the 
Univeisity cou'd no longer be harmoniously prosecuted : so that, apart 
from the great injury likely to accrue from the injurious charges per- 
sistently uttered against myself, and to a certain extent, against some 
of my colleagues, I found an urgent reason for soliciting an immediate 
convocation of your honorable body, in the imminent danger of a state 
of complete disorganization. 



In order that the charges, above alluded to, might be presented for 
your investigation in precisely the form in which they have been pub- 
licly uttered, I have obtained, from one of the gentlemen to whom thev 
were personally addressed, the following written statement : 

(Copied from a note addressed bv Col. A. H. Pegues to Prof Wm. 
F. Stearns, on the 24th of February, 1860.) 

" On the 1st day of this month, in Kindel & Eascoe's store, Dr. 
Branbam, in the pi-esence of Dr. Green, Dr. Carter, (M, D., of Oxford,) 
and others, made the following charges against Dr. Barnard : 

"1st. That he (Barnard) was unsound upon the slaver}^ question. 

" 2d. That he was in favor of, and did advocate, the taking of negro 
testimony against a student. 

" 3d. That H. (a student) was arraigned and tried upon negro tes- 
timony. 

"4th. That upon the question of the expulsion of H., the vote was 
sectionally divided — Barnard, Boynton and Moore voting in the aflBr- 
mative, and the Southern men voting in the negative. 

" 5th. That, pending the discussion upon the case of H., Barnard 
asked Piichardson if he would not believe his negro man, Henry, against 
a student, and when Kichardson said he would not, Barnard said he 

VJOUld. 

" 6th. That all the information in the H. case was furnished by a negro 
woman ; and that it was proposed by the other members of the Facul- 
ty, that, if Barnard and Boynton had other sources of information and 
would assert positively that they knew H. was guilt}'-, they (the other 
members) would vote accordingly. 

" 7th. That Barnard stated that Jane (the negro woman) afterwards 
recognized H., and pointed him out as the man who had assailed her. 

'■' 8th. That notwithstanding the vote of expulsion failed, Barnard 
wrote to the guardian of the student to take him away, which he did. 

"9th. That if the Board of Trustees persisted in their refusal to 
arraign and try Barnard for taking negro testimony against a student, 
he (Branham) would publish the whole thing,, in the Misstssqypicm, to 
the people of the State, over his own signature." 

Col. Pegues adds : " The above are very nearly literally the charges 
made on the occasion alluded to, with the exception of that part in 
which the woman (Jane) is introduced ; and even here, although I 
admit the posibility of not hftving understood or recollected the luorcls, 
exactly, the impression made upon my mind f'Jlly warrants, I think, 
the report which I have made." 

Of these allegations, and of the whole matter or matters to which thej 
relate, I invite the fullest and most searching investigation, on the part 
of your honorable lx)dy. I Ihvite, further, an examination into the 
tenor of my past life, not only for the period of twenty-two years that 
I have spent in unwearied devotion to the cause of Southern education, 
but for that earlier period of youth when I had not yet expected ever to 
bo a resident of a Southern State ; but in regard to which I have, pro- 
videntially, in my possession, testimonials by Southern men, of the 
most uncxcaptionable character. 

I( I entertiiin sentiments now, or if your investigations shall discover 
that I have ever entertained sentiments, which shall Justif}' any nian 
however captious, in pronouncing me "unsound upon the slavery ques- 
tion," then, gentlemen, do your duty, and remove me from a position 
for whicli I am morally disqualified. 



But if, on the contrary, after the severest scrutin}^ of my acts and my 
utterances, you find that the injurious allegations by which it has been 
attempted to strike me down from my post of usefulness, to deprive me 
of my occupation, and to expose me to public opprobrium, are totally 
and entirely groundless and false, then I ask of you, in justice to one 
who has, for nearly six years, honestly, conscientiously, and faithfully 
consecrated to your service all the energies of his intellectual and phy- 
sical being, to put the stamp of your emphatic condemnation upon an 
outrage, in my view without a parallel in the annals of civilization. 
I remain, gentlemen, respectful!}^, your ob't serv't, 

F. A. P. l^ARNARD, 
Chancellor of the University of Mississippi. 

Henry R. Branham. M. D.,.of Oxford, who was present, by permis- 
sion of the Board, when the foregoing communication from Chancellor 
Barnard was read, submitted the following as the only charges and spe- 
cifications he now had to make against Dr. Barnard : — 

"1st. That Dr. Barnard oflfered the statement of a negro as evidence against 
a student of the University of Mississippi, Mr. H. 

2nd. That after the Faculty refused to sustain* the charge upon the testi- 
mony adduced, Dr. Barnard withsut the authority of the Faculty, wrote to 
his guardian a letter which resulted in the withdrawal of Mr, H. from the Uni- 
versity. 

3rd. That Dr; Barnard interposed and objected to Mr. H's re-admis- 
aion into the University at the opening of the following session, and thus pre- 
vented his return. H. R. BRANEAM." 

March Ist, 1860. 

Chancellor Barnard, who was present, thereupon drew up and iiled the 
foil )wiiig response to the charges submitted by Dr. Branha-u : — 

" The charges of Dr. Braaham are by no means so sweeping as I desire the 
in veH' illation to be. I rejoin, and undertake to prove : — 

1. Tiia,t I- proceeded ii4d.iadt H. upon entirely sufficient and satistaotory evi- 
dence, before I ever kniw waat the uegro said : the negro being my own ser- 
vant, aud having bean cruelly outraged and beaten. 

That I never spoke t • tne servant on the subject of the outrage in my life, 
Deither before nor .-iince the occurrence. 

That during the progress of the aifair, which lasted about a week, my wife 
meutiof.ed to me that the servant had told her the story, and repeated it to me 
without any sniicitation of mine. 

Tbat. Mt the trial of H,, I presented the evidence which had satisfied me ,. 
and during the discussion i mentioned what my wife had said of the negro's 
story, aud did say tiiat I regarded the coincidence as a confirmatory circum- 
Btanoe. 

That the Faculty did, by reso'ution, declare that they were morally con- 
vinced of the guilt of H. 

Tb it this resolution was publicly read, and elicited from the students no 
expression of dissent. 

Thar, H. t/tt/ commit the act. 

2. That H." was a student of bad character before. 

That it was perfectly competent to me, as Chancellor of the University, to 
desire his Guardian to withdraw him, if I thought he was doing ill ..nd exert- 
ing a bad intlueuce, — that I did think so, — that the resolution of the Faculty, 
dec'a,ring thcr Conviction of his guilt, amplj-- justified my action in desiring 
him to be withdrawn. 

Tbat I often so act in analogous cases, and that it is my right and duty so 
to do. 

3. That I did refuse to re-admit H., because he was undesirable as a student. 
That such is my prerogative and right. 

That, therefore, charges 2 and. 3 are totally frivolous. 

Further, as to charge 1, if it were in any sense true, I was but doing my 
duty as a christian master, to protect my servant from outrage ; and that 1 



6 

am sustained in this view by the highest authorities, among whom I am per- 
mitted to oflfer the written opinion of the Hon, Jacob Thompson. 

That college government is a parental, and not a municipal government : 

Aad, finally, that the question, which concerns the Board and the public, is 
not, whether, on a particular occasion, I committed an error of judgment or 
not: but whether I do entertain the principles which it is sought by these 
charges to fasten upon me : and in regard to this I aver that I am as " sound 
on the slavery question" as Dr. Branham, or any member of this Board. 

F. A P. BARNARD." 

Thereupon, the following resolution was adopted by the Board : — 

Resolved, That the extent of our investigation be such as to embrace the 
charges specifically made by Dr. Branham against. Dr. Barnard, upon which an 
issue has been maSe up by Dr. Barnard, and, also, such other matters as are 
embraced in the communication of Dr. Barnard to the Board, relating to charges 
against him, which, if true, render him an unsuitable person to preside over a 
Southern University. 

That, in' conducting the examination. Dr. Branham shall have an oppor- 
tanity to produce all the evidence, documentary and oral, upon which he reliea 
to support his charges, and to examine witnesses, himself ; and Dr. Barnard 
shall have the like opportunity; — both of the parties having also the right to 
cross-examine as the investigation progresses : and the Board reserves the right 
to each member thereof to ask any question pertinent to the matter under in- 
vestigation, and to examine 'the parties to the issue — Dr. Branham and Dr. 
Barnard. 

That each witness be put upon his honor as to the truth of his statement, and 
each one be examined separately from the others. 

The Board ulso think it a proper and important subject of investigation, as 
to the manner iu which the proceedings of the Faculty, in their official sesfions, ' 
have been divulged, or came to the knowledge of Dr. Branham ; and they think 
it proper that the testimony introduced, upon every material point investigat- 
ed, shall be reduced to writing by some person designated for that purpose by 
the President of the Board." 

Prof. Wm. F. Stearns was appointed as the reporter of the testimony under 
the foregoing resolution — he being the only Phonographic reporter in or near 
Oxford. Prof. Stearns, upon being notified of his appointment, appeared be- 
fore the Board, and asked to be excused, upon the ground that, being a witness 
in'the case, he felt a delicacy in acting as reporter ; but. it being represented 
that the services of no other competent reporter could be secured, — it being uo- 
derstood that Prof. Stearns should be examined before any other witness of 
Dr. Barnard, and Dr. Branham expressly consenting to the arrangement, Prof. 
Stearns accepted the position assigned bim. 

Dr. Branham asked of the Board permission to examine the Faculty record, 
tyhich was granted, and the record was accordingly pi iced in his hands. 

Dr. Branham and Dr. Barnard respectively submitted lists of their witnesses, 
and the Board directed them to be summoned by the Proctor of the University. 

The examination of the witnesses was then proceeded with, and the follow- 
ing is the report of their testimony, as tanen down by Prof. Stearns and Mr. 
Clapp: 

NOTES, 

By Prof. Wm. F. Stearns, Pliorwgraphic reporter, of the testimony given 
in by the various witnesses examined before the Beard of Trustees of 
the University of Mississippi, at their meeting/ on the 1st and 2nd 
March, 1860, in Oxford, Mississippi : 

Dr. Henry R. Branham said : — I have but one item of evidence to 
introduce. In an interview which I had with him some three or four 
weeks aj^o, Dr. Barnard admitted to me that he had offered ne'^ro testi- 
moDy ajci^inst a studeni, as circumstantial evidence, and just, lied it, upon 
the ground that such evidence was admitted in courts of justice. 



Cross-examined by Br. Barnard : — My object, in seeking that inter- 
view with you, was, to deny that I had said something about you which 
I was informed I had been represented as saying. I recollect, that, at 
that interview, you disclaimed having ever used negro testimony, and 
denounced the use of such testimony ; but I do not recollect all the 
words that were used at that interview. I understood you to connect 
the negro's statement with the word *' circumstantial." 

To Judge Clayton. Having been told that Dr. Barnard had heard 
that I had called him an abolitionist, this led me to seek an interview 
with him, in order that I might explain my position. I told him that 
I had not said, and did not believe, that he was an abolitionist, but that 
I did believe he was a free-soiler, and that I had told Col. Young, a 
member of the Board of Trustees, last summer, about his use of negro 
testimony. I refuse to say how I first got information of what had 
been done in the Faculty meeting at which H. was tried. I do say, 
however, that I did not get it from any member of the Faculty. I 
never spoke to Dr. Barnard about what was charged against him, until 
my recent interview with him, some three or four weeks ago. Previous 
to last spring, my relations with him had been very friendly. After 
that time, I intended to make such a change in my manner towards him 
as might indicate a change in my feelings ; but I do not know that he 
noticed it. We did not often meet. I have stated, that, if ther>Univer- 
sity was to be conducted upon such principles as would allow negro 
testimony to be used against students, I would not pull out a chunk of 
fire from under the University buildings ; but I never used such an 
expression, except under the condition I have mentioned. I claim to 
be as good a friend of the University as any member of the Board of 
Trustees. I did urge Judge Longstreet to resign the Presidency of 
the University. 

To CoL. Young. I did not consider the whole of my conversation 
with you last summer as of a confidential character. A portion of it I 
did. When I went to see you, I called on you as a friend, and did not 
then intend, as well as I now recollect, to make any statement to you 
about Dr. Barnard's use of negro testimony ; but, having told you of 
it, I left under the impression that I had done all that was necessary in 
order to have an investigation of the matter by the Board of Trustees. 
We had a confidential conversation at that time, about other things. I 
have said that Col. Thompson, when President of the Board of Trus- 
tees, had treated Judge Longstreet badly, in consulting with th& then 
Professor Barnard, in regard to University affairs; but 1 never imputed 
any blame in that regard to Dr. Barnard, or accused him of intriguing 
to get Judge Longstreet out. On the contrary, I always considered 
him as a friend of the Judge. 

To Mr. Dowd. In my conversation with Col. Young, I may have 
said that I had heard that Dr. Barnard always kept the University of 
Alabama in hot water while he was there, for 1 have so heard, but I do 
not remember from whom I heard it 

Being asked the grounds of his belief that Dr. Barnard was a free- 
soiler. Dr. Branham said : — Because he admitted negro testimony as 
circumstantial evidence against a student; because he wanted the Uni- 
versity catalogue printed at the North, and objected, Uj.oa the ground 
of workmanship, to their being printed in the South ; and because he 
entertained a proposition for a place in Yale College.. I never heard 
him make any remark, pro or can, on the subject of slavery, until th% 



8 

date of my late interview with him. I used to be a supporter of his, 
but lost confidence in him when I heard what he had done about the 
catalogue. I first learned about the negro testimony from a confiden- 
tial source which I cannot disclose. I learned that Dr. Barnard "had 
made a personal issue with a member of the Facult}- — Dr. Carter, — 
about the printing of the catalogue, either from Dr. Carter, Prof. Phipps, 
or Prof. Richardson : but I cannot now remember which of them told 
me of it. 

Dr. Carter told me all about the meeting of the Facult}', which was 
held on the 2nd of February last, for the purpose of making up the 
record of the action of the Faculty in the H. case. 

Prof. J. M. Phipps. I was present at an interview between Dr. 
Branham and Dr. Barnard, about a month ago. Dr. Branham said his 
object was to explain his position in reference to him (Barnard) and the 
University, and to deny that he had called him an abolitionist. I un- 
derstood Dr. Barnard to say that he had introduced the negro's state- 
ment as circumstantial evidence, and that the courts of the country 
used such testimony. 

Cross-examined. Dr. Barnard, at that interview, declared to Dr. 
Branham that he had no fears of the result, because that which was not 
true could not be proved ; to which Dr. Branham replied, that, from 
what he had heard, it was a pretty strong case. I do not recollect 
whether Dr. Barnard said that he introduced the statement as the 
statement, or the evidence, of the negro, or as a circumstance. Prof. 
Moore was present at this interriew, but was called out once or twice. 

I was present at the Faculty meeting when H. was tried ; but, not 
having thought of the matter from that time until within the last three 
or four v/eeks, I am unable to state, with any great degree of precision, 
what then occurred. Dr. Barnard may, or may not, at that meeting, 
have said that Capt. Boynton had told him H. was guilty. Boynton 
had so stated to me before Dr. and Mrs. Barnard came home; but I 
cannot now recollect whether Dr. Barnard laid that statement before t'^e 
Faculty, or not. 

I have known Dr. Barnard since 1854:. I never heard him say any 
thing about slavery, which showed that he was inimical to the institu- 
tion. Indeed, I never keard him say anythinj.' on the subject. 

Mr. H. was not a good, ordt-rly student. His performances never 
pleased me. 

It is not usual here, for the President to "write off " a student, after 
an investigation, w'ithout tlie sanction of the Faculty, or to refuse to 
take back a student without consulting the Faculty. 

No ill-feeling was manilested in the Faculty when H. was tried*. 

I do not remember the order in wliich Dr. Barnard made his state- 
ment beror2 the Faculty — whether the girl's statement to Mrs. Barnard 
was first spoken of, or Boynton's statement. 

Prof. H. Whitkiiorne. Upon the trial of the H. case, Dr. Barnard 
said he had not talked with the negro woman H. was accused of as- 
saulting, and I did not understand that he spoke of her statement as 
evidence, lie merely told us what Mrs. Barnard had told him. I do 
not remember what question was asked of Prof Piichardson about ne- 
gro testimony, because, when he was asked about his boy lienry by 
Dr. Barnard, I was talking to Prof Stearns. 

H. was not a good student, and I did not think the University lost 
anything when he left it ; but some members of the Faculty objected 



9 

to the act of the President in sending H. away. Dr. Barnard did not 
press the statement of the negro woman upon us as evidence : he mere- 
ly stated what Mrs. Barnard had said. 

I was morally convinced of the guilt of H., from various considera- 
tions : — because his demeanor before the Faculty, in my opinion, show- 
ed that he was guilty; because he attempted to prove &n alibi, and 
failed; because Mr. Furniss proved that he CH-) was on Dr. Barnard's 
premises that night ; and because Boynton said he was guilty. My 
opinion was in no "particular influenced by the statement of what the 
negro had said. 

Mr. J. P. Furniss. When H. was tried, I was a witness 
before the Facult}^, and, being asked whether I had any moral doubt 
that Jane went out to meet some person, I decUned to answer, because I 
was afraid that if I answered that question, I might be asked some other 
question which I should feel morally bound to answer, and thereby 
implicate somebody; but I now say that Mr. H. would not have been 
implicated if I had answered the question, I cannot say, except as I 
have stated, what questions were or were not propounded to me at the 
Faculty meeting. 



March 2nd, 1860. 

Prof. Gt. W. Carter was examined in chief by Dr. Branham, and, 
by consent, his testimony was reduced to writing by Mr. Clapp, — Prof. 
Stearns being absent. 

Dr. Barnard, at the meeting* of the Faculty in the H. case, in the 
presence of the Faculty, and before the accused appeared, gave a his- 
tory of the case up to that time. 

He stated that on his return from Jackson, he found his servant had 
been maltreated, and that he believed FI. was the guilty party. That 
he wrote to Mr. H., informing him of this fact, and that he could sub- 
stantiate it by unimpeachable testimony. Did not say loho this testi- 
mony was, nor did I know to whom he referred. That Mr. H. upon 
receiving this communication, consented to withdraw from the Univer- 
sity; but subsequently, on the advice of his friends, refused to. leave, 
and demanded an investigation. 

Dr. Barnard formiUy presented charges against H., and cited him to 
appear before the Faculty. The charges were then read. At this 
juncture H. appeared, and plead "not guilty." He requested Falconer, 
Furniss, and Shelby, to be summoned as witnesses for him, and offered 
to prove an alibi by them. The charges did not specify smy particular 
day or time on which the offence charged was committed ; and the 
witnesses proved an alibi with as much particularity, I thought, as the 
character of the charges admiited. 

Mr, Fnrnis.^ .vas asked whether, when the servant Jane had left his 
presence on a specified occasion, he had any moral doubt that she went 
to meet some one : — I do not remember that H. was named as the person 
referred to. The majority ol the Faculty did not understand the ques- 
tion as I did. Prof Richardson, who put the same construction on it 
that 1 did, proposed that Furniss be re-called and the (juestion propound- 
ed again — he having declined answering the question when first pro- 
pounded. Some objection was made by some one, I do not know 
whom, and he was not re-called. I did not think that Mr. Furniss re- 
ferred to Mr. H. in declining to answer the question. 



10 

Dr. Barnard then introduced the statement of his servant woman 
Jane, in which she accused H. of being the guilty party; and at the 
same time Dr. Barnard gave Jane's method of identifying the accused, 
viz : by the absence of a front tooth. Dr. Barnard was addressing him- 
self particularly to Prof. Richardson, who construed these statements 
as testimony. Dr. Barnard did not except to such cbnstruction. Prof. 
Richardson proceeded then to discredit Jane's statements. Dr. Bar- 
nard defended them, and put this question to Prof Richardson : — "Prof. 
Richardson, if your servant Flenry should tell you that a student had 
taken your horse or saddle from the stable, would you believe him?-' 
Prof Richardson repli.'d, "I would not, if his statement conflicted with 
the statement of a student, and especially if his method of identifying 
the party should prove false or defective," 

Dr. Barnard, so far as I observed, introduced no other testimony on 
the trial. There was other testimony introduced against the accused, 
but not by him, so far as I remember. 1 was surprised that he did not- 
give the unimpeachable witness to whom ho referred. The negro's 
statement was false in its mt:thod of identification, as tl. had no tooth 
out in front. 

In that connection. Prof. Boynton objected to the discussion, and said 
that he was a witness in the case. I supposed, from the positiveness of 
his assertion, that he was personally acquainted with the facts, but when 
questioned by Prof. Whitehornc and myself, he said he did not know 
the facts from personal observation, and refused to give his authority. 
When further questioned by Prof. Richardson, as to whether his in- 
formant was a negro or white person, he declined telling. I then sup- 
posed that he must have received his information from a servant. 

The bad antecedents of the accused, his irregularities and bad habits 
of study, were introduced as presumptive evidence of his guilt. I am 
not sure who introduced this testimony, nor in what order it came in. 

At the time of H's trial, I did not know whether Dr. Barnard intro- 
duced the servant's statements as having been made to himself or not ; 
and if anything was then said upon the subject by him, I do not re- 
member it ; but I subsequently heard him say, in a Faculty meeting, 
on the 2nd of February last, that he had obtained his information from 
Mrs Barnard, and further stated that the person to whom he referred 
as an unimpeachable witness was Prof Boynton. 

Dr. Barnard and I were on friendly terms from the opening of the 
session in October last to the time when I learned the meeting of the 
Board of Trustees was called, or to be called. The first intimation I 
had that Dr. Barnard considered me personally hostile to himself was 
at the last Faculty meeting, on last Monday, in which he refused to re- 
cognize me by the ordinary salutation that obtained between us. I may 
have bcicn mistaken as to his intention, but understood his deportment 
towards me as unfriendly. Dr. Barnard's personal relations with me, 
before that time, were as intimate, or more so, as with any other mem- 
ber of the Faculty. 

Before I made my record on the ]''aculty minutes, I desired to kno^ 
of Dr. Branham if the mutter in controversy between him and Dr. 
Barnard could be adjusted, and I drew up the terms of a compromise. 
Dr. Branham ol jeeted, upon the gi ound of the publicity the matter had 
received, and thought it could notv only be settled by the Trustees. 
There had been a previous misunderstanding between Dr. Barnard and 
myself, which had been adjusted, and friendly relations restored. 



11 

Cross-examined by Judge Clayton. The proceedings of the Faculty 
meeting in the H. case were not made public by me, or by any mem- 
ber of my family. I communicated them to no one except to members 
of the Faculty. About the 1st of February, when this matter became 
public, when Dr. Branham had made his charges, and Mr. Pegues in- 
formed '<liim that a meeting of the Board would be called, Dr. Branham 
asked Prof. Phipps and myself this question : — 

" Did not Dr. IBarnard ask the question of Prof. Kichardson, relative 
to the credibility of his servant Henry?" We both replied that we so 
understood it. Dr. Branham repeated the question, and we repeated 
the answer, and no further conversation on the subject occurred. 

I did not tell Dr. Branham, or any one else, of the proceedings of the 
Faculty meeting in which the question of printing the catalogues was 
discussed. That question was never acted on by the Faculty, nor pro- 
posed for action : it was merely talked of. I heard ^he members of the 
Faculty express their opinions on this subject, frequently, out of the 
Faculty, and before they went into the Faculty; and I also expressed 
my opinion in favor of printing the catalogue in the South, and especially 
in view of the animadversions of Southern newspapers on the subject. 
I may have mentioned these personal conversations outside of the Fa- 
culty meeting to Dr. Branham, but have no recollection of having done 
so. I regard it as improper to disclose to any one the proceedings of 
llf Faculty meetings, and have this morning signed a petition for the enact- 
ment of a law to enforce secrecy in regard to them. 

I have never heard Dr. Barnard say anything about the institution of 
slavery, in any shape or form. 

To Question by Dr. Barnard. I never expressed to Mr. Steven- 
son, of Oxford, an opinion that you were unsound upon the slaveiy 
question. 

When' Dr. Barnard asked me the question, in the Faculty meeting 
of the 2nd February last, as to whether I thought he was an abolition^ 
ist, I declined answering, because I thought the question an improper 
one under the circumstances, but at the same time I disclaimed any dis- 
courtesy to Dr. Barnard, or reflection upon him; and in a few minutes 
afterwards, I said, in reply to a remark of Prof. Stearns, that no one 
was authorized to cite me as authority that Dr. Barnard was an aboli- 
tionist, and I did not, and do not, suppose him to be an abolitionist, and 
have no information on the subject. Dr. Barnard did nothing, and said 
nothing, on the H, trial, that led me to regard him as unsound on the 
slavery question, further than the proposed introduction of the state- 
ments of the negro, and I did not then regard this as ai- evidence of his 
unsoundness on that subject, but only as an objectionable act, and in 
violation of our social and political economies.. 

To QUESTION BY Dii, BiiANiiAM. 1 heard Dr. Barnard say, in a 
Faculty meeting, some two or three weeks after the H. trial, that Mr. 
H. had come to him for his dismissal, and that he was confirmed, now, 
in his belief of the correctness of Jane's (the servant's) statement, be- 
cause, when he asked her who the young man was, or if she knew him, 
she recognized him as Mr. H. 

Prof, W. G. Richardson, who was next examined in chief by Dr. 
Branham, said : — 

On the trial of H., on the 23rd of May last, Dr. Barnard said to the 
Faculty that during his absence at Vicksburg, his negro woman Jano 
haa been assailed and injured, —that ho had satisfiictory evidence of the 



12 

fact that H. was the man who did it, — that he had written to H. to go 
away, on account of the act of which he had been guilty, — that H. de- 
nied his guilt, and, at first, refused to go, but afterwards consented to 
do so ; and that, still later, he had demanded a trial. H. being present, 
Dr. Barnard said, pointing to H., ''There stands the man who did this 
thing 1 " H. denied that he was guilty, and said that he could prove an 
alili. Witnesses were brought up who testified on that subject. Dr. 
Barnard then stated that the negro woman had said that it was H. who 
assaulted her. I objected to the use of the testimony of the negro, and 
Dr. Barnard asked me if my boy Henry were to come and tell me that 
a student had taken my horse or saddle from the stable, if I would not 
believe him. I said that I would not, if his statement came in conflict 
with the denial of a student, and especially if the mode by which the 
negro identified the student should turn out to be false. A few days 
after the H, case was tried, Prof. Boynton told me that Judge Howry 
had told him that such statements as those offered by Dr. Barnard on 
the trial of the H. case, should be received. 

When H. was tried, Prof. Boynton said he hieio H. was guilty. He 
was asked whether he knew this was, so of his own knowledge. He 
said he did not. I asked him whether his informant was a white man 
or a negro. He refused to answer the question. I never heard Dr. 
Barnard express any opinion on the subject of slavery. 

Cross-examined. I think Dr. Barnard did not offer any other testi- 
mony against H., except that which was furnished by the statements of 
the woman Jane. I did not know whether his object was to use it as 
testimony or not. I could only judge of that from the facts which oc- 
curred. 

Not long ago. Prof Carter told me that Judge Howry had denied 
Baying to Boynton what I have stated above, and, at my request. Carter 
went into Boynton's room to hear the conversation between Boynton 
and myself, when 1 asked him about what he had told me on that sub- 
ject, but he would not then admit that he had ever had any such con- 
versation with me. My opinion is, that Dr. Barnard has used his influ- 
ence with the Board ol Trustees to procure from them an increase of 
his powers. • 

We have no particular form in regard to the testimony we use upon 
the trial of students, but we always scrutinize the source of the testi- 
mon}', and judge of its sufficiency. We sometimes act on the infor- 
nuilion given to a Professor, without knowing who his informant is ; but 
alwa} s require the Professor to satisfy the Faculty that his information 
is reliable, 'i'he action of the Faculty in the H. case was not made 
known by or through me. I never told the editor of the Oxford Mer- 
cury that Dr. Barnard was unsound on the slavery question. 

Dr. Branliam then asked and obtained leave of the Board to introduce 
as evidence the record of the proceedings of a meeting of the Faculty, 
which was held on the 2nd of February, 1860, and of the entries on 
the minutes of the Faculty, which were made under the authority of a 
resolution adopted at that meeting. The said record and entries are in 
the words and figures following, to wit : 

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF TEE FACULTY, FEHRUAKY 2, 1860. 

The special meeting which had been agreed upon at the last regular 
meeting of the Faculty, and which had been deferred because of the 
inclemency of the weather, was held this evening in the library, immc- 



13 

diately after 'tea. Present, the whole Faculty. The house having been 
called to order, Prof. Moore stated the principal object of the meeting 
to be a consideration of the report of the cammittce which had been 
previously appointed to furnish a true record of the proceedings of the . 
Faculty at the regular meeting held May 23d, 1859, which proceedings 
had never been entered among the minutes of the Faculty, through 
neglect of the Recording Secretary. He then submitted the Reporf^ 
which was discussed, amended, and finally agreed to, as follows : " At 
a regular meeting of the Faculty, held May 23, 1859, Mr. H., a student 
of the University, having been previously cited, appeared and plead 
"not guilty" to the following charges preferred against him by the 
President : 1st. Visiting the dwelling of the President in his absence, 
and while it was occupied by defenceless female servants, with shame- 
ful designs upon one of the said servants ; 2d. Committing a violent 
assault and battery upon the servant aforesaid, and inflicting severe 
personal injury, whereby the said servant was for some days incapaci- 
tated for labor, and of which the marks are still, after the lapse of many 
days, plainly visible. 

After the above charges were read and the testimony in the case 
adduced, the following motion was made : " That Mr. H., having been 
found guilty of the offence charged against him, be, and is hereby, 
suspended from the University ;" which motion was lost by the fol- 
lowing vote : 

For the motion — Barnard, Boynton, Moore. 

Against the vwtion — Richardson, Stearns, Whitehorne, Phipps, Carter. 
The following resolution was then offered : " That although the 
Faculty are morally convinced of Mr. H.'s guilt, yet they do not con- 
sider the evidence adduced to substantiate the charge as sufficient, legally, 
to convict him ; " which resolution was adopted by the .following vote : 
For the resolution — Barnard, Stearns, Whitehorne, Moore, Phipps. 
Against tlie resolution — Ptichardson, Boynton, Carter. 
Prof. Moore then read a statement of the reasons which had influ- 
enced the minority in voting to suspend Mr. H., and asked leave to 
spread tlie same upon the record — a request which was discussed at great 
length, and finally granted, by the following vote : 

For the request — Barnard, Ptichardson, Stearns, Boynton, Whitehorne, 
Phipps, ]\Ioore. 

Against the reguest — Garter. 

The following was therefore given the Secrctarj^ for entrance among 
the minutes : " The undersigned members of the Faculty, voting in the 
case of Mr. H. to sustain the charges brought against him (see above) 
and in favor of suspending him, did so for the following reasons : 1st. 
Serious presumption against him from his own conduct in the affair; 
2d. The entire failure of the defence set up — namely, the attempt to 
prove an alibi ; 3d. The refusal on the part of Mr. J. P. Furniss, one 
of the witnesses for the defence, to answer the following question : 
Will you say that Mr. H. was not on Dr. Barnard's premises at the 
time specified ? — Mr. Furniss having previously admitted that he was 
himself on Dr. Barnard's premises at the time specified, and in a situa- 
tion to know whether Mr. H. was there or not ; 4th. Because a member 
of the Faculty affirmed that he Icneio of Mr. H.'s guilt, through a third 
]X)rson, whose name he could not, of course, reveal." 

After which Prof. Carter made a motion that he be allowed to enter 
upon the record his (Carter's) reason's for voting in the above case as he 



14 

did — a request which was amended by Prof. Stearns so as to allow any 
member of the Faculty to enter upon the record his reasons for voting 
in the H. case as he had done, provided su.ch entry be made within a 
week from this time. The motion as amended was unanimously pxssed. 

Prof. Moore then offered the following resolution : "Resolved, that 
Prof. Moore be allowed to communicate the record in the case of Mr. 
H. to Col. A, H. Pegues, a trustee of this institution;" which was 
amended by Prof Carter, as follows : "Provided that such permission 
in no respect commits the majority of the Faculty to the admission of 
the correctness of the facts purporting to be the basis of the minority's 
vote, and set forth in the aforesaid statement." 

The vote upon the amendment was : 

For the amendment — Whitehorne, Carter, Phipps. 

Against the amendment — Barnard, Richardson, Stearns, Boynton, 
Moore. 

And the amendment was declared to be lost. Prof. Moore's motion 
was then caeriicd by the following vote : 

For the motion — Barnard, Richardson, Stearns, Boj^nton, Whitehorne, 
Moore, Phipps. 

Against the motion — Carter. 

After some other immaterial business, the Faculty adjourned. 

A true copy from the minutes. 

BURTON N. HARRISON, Recording Secretary. 



In accordance with the permission given to members of the Faculty 
at the meeting of February 2d, the following entries were subsequently 
made upon the record : 

" In view of the recorded statement of the minority of the Faculty, 
explanatory of their vote on the resolution for the suspension of Mr. 
H., justice to myself and to the facts, as I understand them, demands 
an explanation of my vote also, as one of the majority in this case. The 
subjoined enumeration and valuation of the several items of the testi- 
mony adduced in the case, will sufficiently indicate the basis of that 
vote. 

1st item. The bad habits of study and general irregularities of the 
accused were attested by several members of the Faculty, and a pre- 
sumption against his innocence in the matters charged, was based upon 
these objectionable antecedents. I did not think this presumption, 
under the circumstances, sufficient to prove his guilt. 

2d item. The statements of the servant woman, Jane, including her 
method of identifying the accused, were given by Dr. Barnard. I 
believe the statements were introduced, not historically, but as testimo- 
ny, for these reasons : 1st, because, so far as I observed. Dr. Barnard, 
who presented the charges against the accused, adduced no other testi- 
mony ; 2d, because, when Professor Richardson, in remarks addressed 
to Dr. Barnard, placed this interpretation upon these statements, Dr. 
Barnard entered no disclaimer against such interpretation ; 3d, because, 
when Prof. Richardson impeached and discredited Jane's statements, 
Dr. Barnard contended for their credibility and admissibility, puttmg, 
in the course of the discussion, this question to Prof. Richardson ; "Prof. 
Richardson, if your servant, Henry, were to tell you he had seen a 
certain student take your horse or saddle from your stable, would you 
not believe him ? " The Prof, replied : /' No, I would not, if it came 



15 

in conflict with that student's denial, and especially should the ser- 
vant's mode of identification prove either mistaken or false." 

In view of our social and pohtical economies, I considered Jane's 
statements, as testimony, altogether inadmissible ; and, furthermore, 
in this case, worthless, because her mode of identifying the accused — 
to-wit : by the absence of a front tooth — proved false. 

3d item. Prof Boynton stated before the Faculty that he knew the 
accused was guilty. When asked if he made the afl&rmation from 
personal observation, he said he did not. When requested by Prof, 
Whitehorne and myself to give his authority, he refused to do so. 
When farther asked by Prof Richardson whether his informant was a 
white person or a negro, he declined to tell. From the positive charac- 
ter of his first assertion, I supposed he was personally aware of the guilt 
of the accused ; but when he refused to answer the question propounded 
by Prof. Richardson, I was constrained to believe his informant was a 
negro, and consequently rejected the testimony. 

4th item. Messrs. Farniss, Falconer and Shelby were introduced by 
the accused. I thought that these witnesses proved an alibi with as 
much particularity as the indefinite character of the specifications 
would admit. Nor did I think the refusal of one of the witnesses to 
answer a certain question propounded necessarily involved the inno- 
cence of the accused. I did not understand this question as reported 
by the minority in their recorded explanation of their vote. This 
statement of facts is correct to the best of my recollection, and explains 
my vote on the resolutions referred to. 

(Signed,) GEO. W. CARTER. 

February 6, 1860." 



"To the best of my recollection, the above statement of the H. case by 
Dr. Carter is correct. I moreover endorse this statement as correctly 
setting forth the reasons of my vote in the instance referred to. 

(Signed,) W. G. RICHARDSON. 

Univ. ol Miss., February 6, 1860." 

" The reasons for my vote against the resolution to suspend are con- 
ta'ned in the above statement by Prof Carter. His statement, with the 
following modifications and exceptions, is, to the best of my recollection, 
correct ; 1st, I cannot say that the President did not introduce other 
testimony than the statement of the negro, Jane : 2d, as to the 4th 
item, 1 did not think an alibi was estabUshed, and I placed an entirely 
diiierent construction on the testimony of Mr. Furniss. 

(Signed,) J. M. PHIPPS." 

•' The undersigned, who was one of the majority of the Faculty in 
the K case, is impelled by a sense of justice to the minority to enter 
his emphatic protest against the entry, signed G. W Carter, which, 
under the cover ol the resolution ot the Fficult}'-, passed on the 2d 
instant, has been m;ide on the loregoing pages, for the following reasons: 

l.st. Because, inasmuch as the sole object contemplated by the reso- 
lution just referred to, was, to afford, to any member of the Faculty wlho 
might desire it, the opportunity to defend his individual vote in the 
H. case, the said entry is a gross and unwarrantable abuse of privilege 



16 

— such abuse consisting in the gratuitous and \Yanton perversion of a 
weapon, which could legitimately be used only in self-defence, to pur- 
poses of hostile attack upon the Chancellor of the University. 

2d. Because, in the view of the undersigned, the alleged facts em- 
bodied in the said entry (so far as the same are injurious to "the mi- 
nority,") are, each and all, so warped and colored, so utterly disjoined 
from their due connection with other facts which gave them character, 
or so entirely in conflict with his own clear and distinct recollection, 
that he is unable to recognize them as being either fair or true. 

(Signed,) WM. F. STEARNS. 

February 9th 1860. 

Truly copied from the minutes. 

BURTO^^ X. HARRISON, Secretary. 



Dr. Branham then observed that he had no farther testimony to offer. 

Prof. Wm. F. Steabns was then examined as a witness on the 
part of Dr. Barnard, (his testimony, by consent, being reduced to writ- 
ing by Mr. Clapp.) and said : — I was present at the U. trial. Dr. Barn- 
ard stated that a gentleman had informed him, on his return home, that 
a gross outrage had been inflicted upon his negro woman, — that he had 
addressed a note to the young man implicated, who denied the charge, 
but denied it in such a manner as to convince him of his guilt, — that 
PL at first, had consented to leave the University, but afterwards changed 
his mind and determined to stand his trial. 

The young man, when he was introduced before the Faculty, said he 
was not guilty, and could prove an alihi. He introduced witnesses for 
that purpose, but, as I thought, failed to prove it. Dr. Carter thought 
he proved the alibi. Dr. Barnard then remarked, as a further 'circum- 
stance to show that his opinion, as to the guilt of the young man was 
correct, that Mrs. Barnard — his wife — had told him that his negro wo- 
man, whom he had not conferred with on the subject, had informed her 
that H. was the man. Prof. Richardson seemed to think that Dr. Barn- 
ard introduced the statement of the negro as independent testimony. 
Dr. Barnard controverted this opinion, and said it was only as a corrob- 
orating circumstance, and then put the question to Prof. Richardson : — 
"If your boy Henry were to come and tell you thatsomebody had taken 
your saddle from the stable, would you believe him ? " I understood 
that the statement was offered only as a corroborating circumstance, 
and Dr. Barnard seemed to take particular pains to make himself under- 
stood on this point. It is not true that negro testimony was used in the 
H. trial, in the sense in which the charge has been made. I did not 
deem the use made of the negro's statement as illegitimate, in the man- 
ner in which it was referred to on the trial of H. 

At the meeting of the Faculty which occurred on the 2nd of Febru- 
ary, 1860, Dr. Barnard made some remarks as to the rule of secrecy in 
regard to the proceedings of the Faculty. Dr. Carter observed that 
there was no law upon the subject, and he claime^l the right to exercise 
his discretion to speak of what occurred at such meetings. Dr. Barnard 
then appealed to the members of the Faculty as to whether he was an 
abolitionist or free-soiler. Dr. Carter declined to answer the question. 

The reason assigned by Dr. I^arnard, in general conversations, for 
printing the catalogue at the North, was the superior execution of the 
work, and the reduced price. The catalogue that was printed in New 



It- 
York, was printed by D. Van Xostrand, who is not an abolitionist, and 
who has done printing for rae. (Prof. Stearns here exhibited specimens 
of printing done at the North and at the South, and their relative mode 
of execution and price.) Dr. Barnard is not in the habit of talking pol- 
itics with his, visitors. He has talked of politics with me, however, and 
I never heard any but sound sentiments from him on the slavery ques- 
tion. About the 1st of November, 1857, I invited him to be present 
at the delivery of a lecture which I read before my classes on the sub- 
ject of slavery, and in which I took strong ground in support of that 
institution. He heard the lecture, and expressed his entire approval of 
its sentiments. I believe that no man was ever more causelessly per- 
secuted than he has been on this subject. (Prof. Stearns here read a 
letter addressed to him by the Hon. J. J. Ormond, and Dr. L. C. Gar- 
land, of Tuscaloosa, Ala., endorsing the loyalty of Dr.- Barnard to the. 
South.) 

When Prof. Moore proposed to spread npon the minutes of iile Fa- 
culty, the statement of facts appearing of record over his signature^ 
Prof. Carter was the only one who objected, and he objected upon the 
ground that there was a difference of recollection as to the facts. 

It has been the custom of the Faculty to administer discipline to the 
students upon the statements of members of the Faculty, without re- 
quiring the member informing to disclose the name of his informant. 

Cross examined. I never, before the trial of H., heard it demanded 
that a Professor should disclose the name of his informant. I voted 
against the suspension of H., fully believing that he was guilty, but 
not thinking that he ought to be suspended for that offence. 

(The letter of Judge Ormond and Dr. Garland, which is above re- 
ferred to, is as follows : ) 

TusKALOosA, 13th February, 1860. 

My Dear Sir : Having heard that Professor Barnard's principles as 
a Southern man have been called in question, we take the liberty to 
say that we knew him well while he lived in Alabama — one of us for 
nearly twenty years — and never heard his attachment to the institu- 
tions, of the South called in question ; nor did we ever witness in our 
intercourse with Prof Barnard, either in act or speech, an3'^thing calcu- 
lated to induce a suspicion that he was not entirely identified with the 
South and attached to her institutions and domestic policy, and there- 
fore we do not doubt he is a loyal Southern man. You can make such 
use of this letter as your judgment may dictate. 

J. J. ORMOND, 

Prof. Stearns, Univ. of Miss. L. C. GARLAND. 

Thos. N. Wendell said: I have heard Dr. Branham say that if negro 
testimony was to be introduced against students, he did not care if the 
University was burned up. This conversation occurred a few days 
since, at a store in town. 

Cros-i -examined by Dr. Branham : — T have frequently heard you say 
that you were a friend of the University. 

Prof. Whitehorne, being re-called, said : I never told the editor of 
the Oxford Mercury that Dr. Barnard was unsound on the slavery ques- 
tion. 

Prof. Phipps, being re-called, said : I never told the editor of the 
Oxford Mercury that Dr. Barnard was unsound on the slavery question> 



18 

Prof. W. D. Moore said : Upon the trial of the II. case, Dr. Barnard 
told the Faculty that upon his return from Yicksburg, Prof. Boynton 
told him that his house had l>een entered and a gross outrage committed 
upon his negro woman, and that young H, did it; that he (Dr. Barnard) 
was so well satislied of the guilt of the young man, that, without having 
spoken of the matter to the woman, he wrote to him and advised him 
to leave quietly ; that, at first, H. said he would go, bat after consulting 
with his friends, he demanded a trial. H. appeared before the Faculty 
meeting, and named his three witnesses, by whom he said he could 
prove an alibi. They were Shelby, Falconer and Furniss. ' I did not 
understand that the statement of the woman was what Dr. Barnard 
proceeded on. Shelby and Falconer were examined on the question of 
alibi. Furniss w\as asked, as Dr. Bernard's witness, whether he would 
say that H. was not guilty. lie refused to answer the question. 

Dr. Barnard asked Prof. Kichardson whether, if his boy, Henry„ 
should tell him that he saw a man take his saddle from his stable, he 
would not belive him. Nothing was said about putting the boy's 
veracity against that of the man, or of a student. 

An interview between Dr. Barnard and Dr. Branham took place at 
my room some three or four weeks ago. Dr. Branham told me that 
he wished to see Dr. Barnard, in order to disabuse his mind about a 
remark he was said to have made in regard to him. I did not hear all 
that occurred at that time. However, 1 did her Dr. Barnard say that 
he had no fear for the result, because that which was not true could not 
be proved. Dr. Barnard advised the guardian of H. to take him awaj, 
and he did so. At the next session H. sought to be re-admitted to the 
University, but was repelled by Dr. Bernard, who told me that if H. 
came back, he (Barnard) would go away. I considered H. a bad young 
man, and was glad when he went away. I did not make known what 
had been done on the triiil of the H. case. 1 did not tell the editor of 
the Oxford Mercury about it. 

Prof. E. C. Boynton said : Upon the return of Dr. and Mrs. Bar- 
nard from below, in May last, I sent for him to my room, and told him 
that on the night of the 11th of May, his house had been visited hj 
two students, and that their names were Furniss and H. ; that his 
negro woman, Jane, had been beaten, and that II. was the man who 
did the act ; that I beheved this was not the first time II. had visited 
his premises. I think it probable that I told him I was certain of the 
fact. He never asked me how I got this information. During his 
absence, his house, which is only separated fiom mine by a brick wall, 
was not occupied, except b}' his servants. On the night of the 12th of 
May, there was more than usual noise in Dr. Barnard's house. I heard 
voices, seemingly in altercation — not the voices of negroes. I went to 
the dividing fence between the two houses, and, looking over it, I saw 
two persons, not negroes. I could not identif}' the two, though I sus- 
pected one. I did not then know the servant had been beaten. In 
two or three days, I learned that the names of the two young men 
were Furniss and H., and that H. had beaten the woman, Jane. I bad 
not then seen Jane, and did not see her for more than a week. I did 
not obtain the knowledge of any of their names from an}* negro. I 
have never conversed with a negro on the subject. I know the knowl- 
edge did not come from a negro, diicctly or indirectly. 

The investigation was made by Dr. Barnard at the following Faculty 
meeting. In bringing forward the case, Dr. Barnard said he had satis- 



19 

factory information that in his absence his premises had been visited 
and an outrage committed upon his woman, Jane ; that, upon receiving 
this information, he had addressed a note to H. and advised him to 
leave the (Jniversity, and that H. had expressed a willingness to do so, 
but afterwards he received a note from him in which he demanded an 
investigation. 

When the trial took place, H. named Shelby and Falconer as his 
witnesses, in order to prove an alibi. In my opinion he failed to prove 
it. Furniss was brought in as Dr. Barnard's witness. He admitted 
that he was on Dr. Barnard's premises that night, and was asked this 
question : "If you, who were H.'s companion on that night, know that 
he is innocent, say so, and acquit him." He declined to answer it. 

After this. Dr. Barnard said his wife had told him Jane had informed 
her that H. was the man who had committed the assault upon her. 
There seemed to be an indisposition to receive the statement : the ob- 
jection was, that such statement could not be received there. I did 
not regard the statement as evidence, but simply as a fact confirmatory 
of a proposition already established. There seeming to be an objection 
to receiving any other testimony than such as was considered legal, I 
said I believed the man did the act — that I was satisfied beyond a 
doubt, and that I should act according to my convictions. Prof. 
"VVhitehorne said that if I would not divulge the source of my informa- 
tion he would not act upon it. I quoted the cases of two students who 
had been expelled from college, upon secret information, without any 
question being raised upon it ; and I denied their right to go behind my 
statement, and ask whence I obtained my inforn;iation. It was the 
first case in which a demand was ever made for the name of a Profes- 
sor's informant, and I was not inclined to submit to it. 

Dr. Barnard asked Professor Kichardson — " If your man, Henry, 
should tell you that your horse or saddle had been stolen from the barn, 
would you believe him or not ?" Kichardson said he would not, if his 
statement came in conflict -^ith that of a white person. There was no 
•warmth of feeling exhibited between Prof Richardson and Dr. Bar- 
nard. 

At the Faculty meeting of the 2d of February, Prof Carter said : — 
*'You have precipitated this thing, which was bound to have come out 
at no distant day." 

I have recently refused to attend the Faculty meetings, because of 
Prof. Carter's declarations about revealing what took place at the Fac- 
ulty meetmgs. 

I did not disclose the action of the Faculty meeting in the H. case, 
either to the editor of the Oxford Mercury^ or to any other person. 

James G. Trigg said : Some short time after Judge Longstreet re- 
signed the Presidency of the University — some three or four years ago 
— Dr. Branham said, in Wendell & Neilson's counting-room, that he 
had now got Judge Longstreet out of the University, which he had 
l:)een trying to do for some time, and that, if he were riding by the Uni- 
versity and saw a torch applied to the whole concern, he would not get 
off his horse to put out the fire. 

Prof. Wm. F. Stearns, re-called, said : At the meeting of the Fac- 
ulty on the 2d of February, Prof Carter said : " You have precipitated 
this thing before I was ready lor it," or something to that effect. 

CoL. Geo. H. Young said : At the last commencement (in July, 
1859,) I had an interview with Dr. Barnard, which satisfied me that he 
tiien had no suspicion that Dr. Carter was not friendly towards him. 



20 

Last summer, Dr. Branham told me that Dr. Barnard was, as he 
understood, in favor of taking negro testimony against students ; but I 
considered this a confidential conversation. My impression is, that Dr. 
Branham then told me that Dr. Barnard had been intriguing to get 
Judge Longstreet away ; and I was so sure about it that I wrote to 
Judge Longstreet on the subject. 

Dr. E. W. Hilgard said : I heard Dr. Branham say, in an interview 
I had with him last summer, after commencement, that there would be 
a change in matters at the L'^niversity very shortly. I intimated that 
this would be a difficult job. He said : " We have fixed all that." 
This conversation took place at Dr. Branham's house. 

Burton N. Harrissox said : I am the Becording Secretarj' of the 
Faculty, and have beerf such officer since the beginning of the present 
session. I was present at the meeting of the Faculty on the 2d of 
February, when Dr. Carter remarked that this thing had come up before 
he was ready for it — it had been precipitated — but, as it had come up, 
he was going on with it. 

Col. a. H. Pegues said : I have never, recently, heard any one say 
— except Dr. Branham and those who got their information from him — 
that Dr. Barnard was unsound on the slavery question. About the 
time Dr. Barnard's Thanksgiving sermon was delivered in 1856, I 
thought it was well, as he was a Xorthern man by birth, that the ser- 
mon should be published, and I contributed a part of the cost of publish- 
ing it. 

(The following is that portion of the sermon, referred to by Col. 
Pegues, which indicates the views of Dr. Barnard upon Southern ques- 
tions :) 

" Oratitude due for National Blessings : A Discourse delivered at Oxford, 
Mississippi, on Thanksgiving day, November 20, 1856. By Frederick 
A. P. Barnard, LL. B. 

A far graver menace than this seemed to spring out of our disturbed 
relations with a portion of our own fellow-citizens, inhabiting a dififerent 
section of our common country. The year through which we have 
just passed has indeed, in this respect, been the darkest of all which 
have lelt their record upon the page of our country's history. It was 
this lime no trivial cloud which had suddenly gathered to darken lor a 
mt ment our political firmament, but it was one which had long hung 
lowering in the distance, sometimes rolling up in formidable masses 
toward the zenith, revealing in occasional finishes the angry fires which 
were slumbering in its bosom, and again subsiding for a time to less por- 
tent ous dimensions, but never wholly disappearing — it was this, which, 
during the last anxious summer the friends of God and of peace and 
of human progress were breathlessly watching, as, in darker and still, 
darker volume it spread itself over the entire heaven, and seemed ready 
to burst into asloim, whose violence should shake the continent. 

It is no purpose of mine to discuss the causes which, during a long 
series of years, have fomented a state of feeling among our people so 
much to be deplored, so fraught with danger to our peace, so menacing 
to the permanence of our unity as a nation. Such a discussion is 
not meet either for this place or for this occasior^ But it 'S proper and 
it is fitting, since the catastrophe, so tremblingly anticipated by SO 
many anxious hearts, has been for the time — may we not believe, in 



21 

the purposes of God, forever — averted, it is proper and it is fitting for 
me to remind you, that this deliverance imposes on you a deeper debt 
of gratitude to your Almighty Benefactor, than any other national 
blessing which he has bestowed upon this people, since their original 
recognition into the family of nations. 

That the union of these States was . originally a benefit to every 
member of the confederacy, I believe that no man has ever doubted. 
That so long as the principle of equality among the several members, 
on the basis of which it was established, remains intact, it must continue 
to be, no less than it was originally, a benefit to all ahke, I believe to 
be just as undeniable. That its disruption, therefore, in itself considered, 
must be a calamity, and an incalculable calamity, admits in my mind 
of not a shadow of doubt. Yet it is no less true, on the other hand, 
•that every benefit, small or great, of which the union is the source, 
springs out of that simple basis just mentioned, which is the foundation 
of the constitution ; and, that, so soon as that principle ceases to be 
recognized — so soon as the constitution as administered ceases to be the 
constitution which our fathers framed — then the union is in fact, to all 
intents and purposes, substantially dissolved already, and its formal 
dissolution becomes a mere question of time. 

In this simple proposition, unless I greatly err, is embodied the delib- 
erate conviction of far the greater number of our own people. The 
feeling of attachment to the Union is nowhere more ardent and nowhere 
more general than in these Southern States. We love the Union be- 
cause our fathers loved it, and for the honor and reverence in which we 
hold their memories, we would cherish it as they cherished it before 
us. We love it, because with a faithful observance of its conditions, it 
is a fraternal bond, ^uniting in its wide embrace a vast and scattered 
family, whose members, however remotely separated geographically, 
are still one in origin, one in language, one in religion, and one in their 
undying love of liberty. We love it, because its stability secures to us 
as a people a position of equality among the great powers of the earth, 
and enables us to present to other powers a front so imposing as to 
command universal respect, and to repress the spirit of aggression from 
without And we love it because we believe it to be capable of securing 
to ourselves at home, the greatest pohtical good of the greatest number ; 
and because, still further, in the depths of that gloomy chasm which its 
ruins must leave behind, we know not what untold evils may lie con- 
cealed. If, therefore, this beautiful political structure which our fathers 
reared is destined to be undermined, ours will not be the sacrelegious 
hands which shall sap its foundations. That practical sundering of the 
bonds which unite us with our brethren in which the real dissolution 
must consist — that invasion of the independence of sovereign -States and 
of the principle of equal rights, which treacherously subverts the con- 
stitution while professing to observe it — that great wrong to humanity 
and sin against God will never be our work. But should this lamenta- 
ble consummation be brought to pass by other hands, and should- all the 
valuable ends for which the union was established be successfully frus- 
trated — then, when the temple of our constitutional liberties shall have 
been spoiled of all its treasures, and the ark no longer reposes in the 
sanctuary, let it not be imputed to us for faithlessness or impieiy, if we 
turn our backs upon the dishonored edifice, and refuse to worship longer 
within its desecrated walls. It will not be we who have dissolved the 
union ; it will only be wc who have said, The Union is dissolved. 



22 

That hour of grief and gloom — thanks be to God — has not yet amved. 
Nay, unless the purposes of Providence be too obscurely shadowed forth 
for human intelligence to read them, in the dii^ection given to doubtful 
and momentous human affairs, and in the control mysteriously exer- 
cised over the minds of masses of men, I cannot but believe that that 
fatal hour is destined naver to come. For, in the passing away of the 
angr^-- menace of the last few months, and in the event which has so 
suddenly tranquilized the public mind in regard to our immediate future, 
I think we may be justified in recognizing a decisive expression of the 
people's will, that the constitution as we read it to-day shall be the con- 
stitution as our fathers fashioned it. It is matter of histor}' that in the 
deliberations of that body of enlightened men by whom the instrument 
was framed which binds us together, no object was kept more anxiously 
or more constantly in view, than that of excluding from our national 
counsels and our national politics every subject which could by possibili- 
ty give rise to sectional divisions, or authorize the intermeddling of any 
one State with the local affairs and interests of any other, or of :he 
Congress of all the States with those of any one. So long as their 
work was respected, so long we remained peaceful, harmonious and 
happy. When, in the progress of the years, there sprang up men wiser 
than their fathers, and greatly wise above that which is written, then 
began the reign of agitation, discord and disquiet. 

I ma}' be mistaken in my interpretation of God's purposes in his pro- 
vidence, but I cannot believe otherwise than that the struggle between 
the old lights and the new lights in American political philosophy is 
substantially over; since the voice of the people, recently declared in the 
manner pescribed by^the constitution, has a significancy far above that 
which is immediately apparent. It is a small thing to have detei mined 
that one man rather than another shall be the temporary director ol the 
affairs of state ; but it is a great thing to have pronounced an authora- 
tive interpretation of the constitution of the country, which is destined to 
save us from political dismemberment, and possibly to avert from us 
scenes of civil conflict which it is impossible to comtemplate without 
shuddering. Not, indeed, thai in this decision all are likely contented- 
ly to acquiesce. That is a great deal too much to expect Agitation 
will not cease. Agitators never cease. But as God will make the wrath 
of man to praise him, so the remainder of wrath he will restrain. Agita- 
tion will become powerless for further harm ; for the principle now es- 
tablished as a principle will have been carried .into pr.-ictical application 
and confirmed in precedent, long before an occasion for a stTUggle like 
that of the past year can again arise. 

Now, though 1 have regarded the confirmed stability of the Ameri- 
can union m the light of a benefit secured to our.selves, and as therefore 
calling fur the expression of our highest gratitude, yet I believe that it 
is not less a benefit to the entire world of mankind. I believe that, in 
raising up this union, God has designed it as an instrument for the ac- 
corapli.shmen*-. of a great purpose — a purpose no less than the political 
regeneration of the whole human race. The example of America has 
already wrought more powerfully than all other causes combined, to 
open the eyes of the people of Europe to the falsity, injustice, and oppres- 
sion of their existing political system ; yet whenever, thus fiir, they have 
attempted to remodel those systems to a more rational form, they have 
fallen into errors more dangerous than the evils which they sought to 
correct. In their impatience of the control of despots, they have cast off 



23 

respect for every species of control. They have chafed so long under 
arbitrary restraints, that they chafe no less under the salutary restraints 
of law. Under the name of the republic, they have introduced the wild- 
est anarchy : the tyranny of the individual has given place to the tyran- 
ny of the mob ; and, as a natural consequence, affrighted society has 
sought shelter beneath the strong arm of despotism again. In learning 
their first lesson, they have gone far beyond their masters, and it will be 
only when, by repeated and bitter experience, the}^ have been taught 
their error, that they will become sufficiently sobered to resort to the 
original source of instruction in a spirit prepared to accept the second 
and no less import int lesson, that licentiousness is not liberty, and that, 
where no law is, there liberty cmnot be." 

Hon. J. M. flowRY said : — The resolutions of the Board ot Trustees, 
adopted at their last meeting at Jackson, prescribing the duty of tho- 
Chancellor of the University in relation to absences of Professors, &c., 
and of which some members of the Facult}^ have complained, because 
they supposed Dr. Barnard to have procured their passage, were adopted 
by the Board in spite of Dr. Barnard's remonstrances, and not pursuant 
to his wishes. The Board so flir deferred to his request as not to pass 
them, last summer, in Oxford ; but I think the mind of the Board was 
then made up to adopt such measures at the ensuing meeting. Dr, 
Barnard opposed the passage of the resolutions at Jackson. 

Chancellor F. A. P. Baenakd said : I never spoke to my servant 
Jane on the subject of the outrage committed upon her, from the day 
of its occurence to the present time. Some weeks after the occurrence, 
and after H. had been tried, he came to my house to take a discharge. 
Jane opened the door to him ; and. after he left, I asked her : "Is that 
the man you call ti ? She replied — "yes." This is all I ever :-aid to 
her about the man, before the trial or after, or she to me. I never said 
anything at all to I'jer about the fact The injury to my servant was 
very severe. The traces of it lasted till f^fler commencement — two 
months. 

I have never, in all my life as a teacher, sought information, in regard 
to the conduct of any student, from any servant — white or black. I 
have never permitted a servant to give m.e such information. . Such 
thingi are abhorrent to my principles, as vrcjl as subversive, in practice, 
of the ends of good government. 

The brief history of this case, in. its principal outlines, is this : I can- 
not suppose I remember all minute details of a transaction more than, 
eight months old, which was not then e.s ceruel lo possess any extra- 
ordinary importance. But I know thai I r(.ii.eu)ber the important facts 
conectly. My narrative may possibly i'urnisU a key to explain the dis- 
crepancies of those already given, since my knowledge dated from an 
earlier period than that of the Faculty as a body. 

I was acting privately in the matter nearly a week before the trial of 
H. I returned from Vicksburg on Tuesday evening, IVItiy 17th, 1859. 
The next morning, Piof. Boynlon told me that, in my absence, my house 
had been visited by two students, on a night named by him. lie said 
the students were Furniss and 11., and that H. had beaten my servant 
Jane, lie said he was certain of the facts, and of the men, but did not 
seem willing to disclose the source of his information. 1 did not press 
him on that point, for I was mys If satisfied that he knew what he said. 
I believed his informant to be a white person, and had a reason for so 
believing. 



24 

I wrote a note to IT., forthwith, telling him I had heard of what he had 
done, and advising him to withdraw. He called on me, and denied the 
charge. His manner of denial was unsatisfactorj^ On further conver- 
sation, he agreed to withdraw. Two days afterwards, as he did not 
withdraw, 1 wrote again to him, saying that, unless he should leave, I 
should write to his guardian and inform him of the whole affair. He 
then refused to leave without a trial. I then sent for Furniss, and had 
a private conversation with him. He admitted that he was on mj-- pre- 
mises on the night in question, and that another person was there also, 
but declined to say who that person v/as. 

I then drew up Avritten charges against H., and sent them to Prof. 
Phipps, corresponding Secretar}'^ of the Faculty, to be served on H. He 
served them. 

Some time during the progress of these occurrences, after my first 
correspondence with H., but at what precise moment I cannot state, my 
wife informed me that, immediately upon our arrival at home, the ser- 
vants had told her of this act of violence ; but that she, supposing me to 
be ignorant of it, and being unwilling to cause me annoyance in the mo- 
ment of our retur-i, had refrained from informing me of it. She said the 
person inculpate! by the servants was H'. 

At the trial I first read the charges, in presence of H., and stated the 
proceedings of the preceding week, as I have now stated them ; only that, 
instead of saying that Prof. Boyntou had told me, I said that a gentle- 
■me/i had told me: H. offered to prove an rtZ^■6^, and introduced two 
witnesses for the purpose ; but,, in my opinion, the attempt broke down. 
It was proposed to interrogate these witnesses more generally on the 
facts of the case. It was ruled that if they would agree to tell all they 
knew, they might speak — otherwise, not. They refused, and were not 
questioned further. 

I called Mr. Furaiss, and began to examine him. Prof Moore inter-- 
rupted me and asked why I did not apply to him the same rule as to 
the others. I repHed ; "I do not for a reason which will presently ap-' 
pear." This reason was, that I designed to ask him if he would say 
positively that H. was not the man. He does not now remember that 
question, /remember it, because I asked it of predetermined purpose. 
Man}' questions were asked him ; probably that which he remembers, 
among them. 

It was asked of me, at this time or earlier, — " who is the gentleman 
who informed 3'ou originally?" I had introduced the "gentleman" 
anonymously, because I had not previously asked Prof Boynion if he 
■was willing that I should name him To this question, addressed to 
me. Prof Boynton himself answered in the words : — "/ am the man," 
which struck me by their abrupt promptness. One or more officers in- 
terrogated Ijim as to the source of his information. He declined to give 
it, resting on past precedent in this regard. 

At some point in the progress of this trial, I mentioned what my wife 
had told me that the servant had said, as a circumstance corroborative 
of the credibility of the evidence before the Faculty ; just as I should 
have mentioned it as an ii. validating circumstance, had it been different. 
Prof Richardson s.iid that the statements of negroes were not legal tes- 
timony. I replied that I knew that, and the reasons of it, and that I 
did not offer this statement as testimony. I said, however, that our 
belief and disbelief often depend on what is not legal evidence. Her« 
sprung up a conversation of which it is impossible to give details. Prof* 



25 

llichardson, to me, seemed to hold that nothing is credible, which is not 
legal testimony. I was curious to ascertain whether he was disposed to 
acquit the accused because he really did not believe him to be guilty, or 
because — believing H. to be guiity — he considered the legal evidence 
insufficient. A little later, I brought the Faculty to a vote on this point. 
In order to separate distinctly the idea of personal veracity from that of 
legal competency in a witness, I proposed to Prof. Richardson a question. 
I purposely confined this question to a simple matter of fact, excluding 
all allusion to any person whom the fact might affect. I said : "sup- 
pose that your servant, Henry, should tell you that your saddle is miss- 
ing from your stable ; would you not believe him without going to see 
for yourself ?" I did not say, "a student," or even "somebody," as 
some of the witnesses have supposed. Nor, in this connection, did any 
question, or could any question, arise about idenity, or modes of identi- 
fication ; since the interrogatory suggested no person to be identified, and 
since, as I have already said, all allusion to any person in the question 
was excluded, of predetermined purpose. My assertion was, that, in 
the common affairs of life, we believe the statements of servants, and 
must do so ; though we could not employ their statements as testimony. 

The Faculty refused to suspend H. The}'- passed a resolution, de- 
claring themselves morally convinced of his guilt, but not satisfied with 
the legal proof of it. I communicated the resolution to the guardian of 
H., and expressed a wish, that, considering these circumstances, he 
would withdraw him. He did so. 

In October last, H. applied for re-admission. I refused to receive him, 
because I thought him not to be a young man of good moral character. 

I had a right privately to advise the guardian to withdraw the young 
man. It is a discretion exercised by all heads of collegiate institutions. 
I should esteem it, however, perfectly legitimate and proper for any 
Professor to do the same thing, if he thought a young man doing ill in 
any way. The moment the Board declare that I do not possess this 
right, I shall relinquish my trust. I am held by the public mainly re- 
sponsible for the good order and morality of the (JoKege. I cannot consent 
to be a target, with my hands tied. 

The present University Code requires the Faculty, as a body, when 
they see fit, through their President, to advise parents and'guardians to 
remove students. This has been interpreted, by witnesses here, as a 
restraint upon the President. No member of the Faculty but myself 
probably knows the whole history of that law, or the reason why it is 
there. 

There was no such law under my predecessor. I a a the author of 
the law, though it was presented to the Faculty, with the rest of the 
Code, for their approval, before it was laid before the Board for their 
sanction. My reason for preparing it was this : — Pui-ir ; my first year 
the letters which I wrote to parents, giving information uot flattering in 
regard to their sons, were, in several instances, sent back to the young 
men, and circulated through College. They were thrust into my face 
in my own house, and made matters of personal difficulty. I desired to 
be able to make my action, in such cases, when circumstances seemed 
to render it desirable, the action of the body of the Faculty, and not of 
myself only. I did :.ot mean to curtail myself of the freedom of actioa 
I possessed before, whenever I should choose to exercise it. 

As to my refusal to re-admit H., the Board have enacted that no one 
shall be admitted without presenting testimonials of good moral char- 



26 

acter. This rule is published, in the Catalogue, as the first requisite for 
admissiou. "Written testimonials are required, because the majority of 
applicants are unknown to the Faculty. The design of the rule is, to 
protect the morals of the University. If I have reason to think a young 
man to be undesirable, in this point of view, as a student, the spirit of 
the rule requires me to exclude him. If this discretion is not confided to 
me, I have not power to execute my trust, and I must resign it into the 
hands of the Board. . As to'my sentiments on the subject of slavery^ 
my record is clear for my whole life. As to that early period of 't, 
when I resided in Xew York, and before I ever thought of becoming a 
citizen of the South, 1 submit extracts from letters written by South- 
ern men, in 1837, to the Board of Trustees of the University of Ala- 
bama. J. W. Stuart was at that time Professor of Roman Literature in 
the College of South Carohna, and had been previously President of the 
College of Charleston. He writes : — 

Columbia, Nov. 6, 1837. 
M. D. Williams, Esq — Secretarij of the Board of Trustees of the Uni- 
versity of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. 

Sir : — Having understood that Mr. Frederick A. P. Barnard, of New 
York, is a candidate for the chair of Mathematics, or for that of Belles 
Letters and oratory, in the Li'niversity of your State, I am anxious to 
add my testimony to that of others, respecting his quahfications. I 
know him well. He was my class-mate in College, and was there high- 
ly distinguished, particularly for his skill and attainments in Mathe- 
matics. ^: . * * * * * 

In other respects his qualifications are such as strongly to recom- 
mend him to the Trustees of your Institution. He is fond of the South, 
a warm supporter of its Institutions, and of manners highly affable and 
gentlemanly. lam pursuaded he would rcllect honor upon any Col- 
lege with which he is connected, as his mind is superior, his thirst for 
excellence strong, and habits of application regular and zealous. 
With much respect, I am, sir, your ob't servant, 

J. W. STUART 
South Carolina College." 

0. E. Carmichaei was (and, I presume, still is) a Merchant of Augusta, 
Georgia, lie writes : 

"Augusta, 6 Nov. 1837. 
M. D. Williams, EaO. — Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Uni- 
versity of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. 

Sir : — Having lately understood that a friend of mine, Mr. F. A. P. 
Barnard, of the icity of Now York, contemplates becoming a candidate 
for the chair of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, and also know- 
ing the very laudable feeling which now so generally pervades our 
Southern States — that of employing native talent, or, at least, those who 
are with us in action and feelings, — it is with pleasure, therefore, that I 
can with safety, after a long and intimate acqua'ntance with Mr. Bar- 
nard, speak of him as a gentleman possessing all the qiialilications that 
a Southerner could wish in one who designcs becoming one of their so- 
ciety, and that onaU important questions which might agitate the North 
in opposition to the South, his actions and feelings will be truly Suuth- 
ern. As regards Mr. B.'s qualifications to fill the chair, he will un- 
doubtedly procure such testimonials as will be fully satisfactory to the 
Trustees. * * * * * 

Yours very respectfully, 

0. E. CARMICHAEL.'* 



As to my nearly seventeen years of residence in^Alabama, the testi- 
monial of Judge Ormond and President Gfarland, obtained without my 
knowledge, has been presented earlier in this investigation. Of the sen- 
timents I have consistently professed 'since I came here, enough has 
been said by others. I was born at the North. That I cannot help. 
I was not consulted in the matter. I am a slave-holder, and, if I know 
myself, I am "sound on the slavery question." 

At my interview with Dr. Branham, I did not say that I would use a 
negro's testimony as circumstantial evidence, nor that "such is the 
practice of our courts of j ustice." I know better. My reference to courts 
of justice is in my favor, for it shows that I proposed to do no more 
than municipal courts do. What I did say to him on this point appears 
in my foregoing testimony. I said that I was entirely unconcerned as 
to the result of this investigation, and assigned as a reason, that "the 
thing that is not true, cannot be proved." 

I discovered, last summer, that Prof. Carter had long, in secret, en- 
tertained unfriendly feelyigs toward me. I commenced a correspondence 
with him in consequence. His tone led me to believe the breach irre 
parable. On his retnrn, in October, he himself proposed,, in writing, 
"a full and perfect reconciliation." I accepted the offer in good faith. 
We interchanged frequent visits. 

At the meeting of the Board of Trustees in Jackson, in November 
last, some resolutions were passed, re^-arding absences of Professors. — 
Judge Howry, Secretary of the Board, sent copies of those resolutions 
to myself and Prof. Phipps, corresponding Secretary of the Faculty, on 
the morning (I think) of the third of January. I saw Prof. Phipps 
hand his copy to Prof. Carter that morning in the Labratory. Prof. 
Carter never visited my house again. I saw bim return the cop}'- to 
Prof. Phipps at the Faculty meeting of January 9th. Prof. Phipps 
handed it to me, and I read it. Prof. Moore interrogated me as to the 
history of these resolutions. I gave it as well as I knew it. I said I 
was not th^ author i^or the suggester of them. I was not. I advised 
against them. 

At the Faqulty meeting of February 2ad, I referred to the attempts 
to injure me, founded on the H. case. I said the real issue was not what 
incidents occurred on a given occasion, eight months before, about which 
memories differed ; but whether I entertained anti-slavery sentiments. 
I appealed to the magnanimity, the generosity, the common humanity of 
my colleagues, to protect me against what they knew to be a wrong. I 
disavowed the sentiments imputed to me. 1 asked Prof, Carter if he 
did not believe my disavowal. He said he had his own opinion on the 
subject, or words to that affect. I asked him, more generally, would 
he not believe me on my word ? He declined to answer. 

At Washington, the other day, the lion. Jacob Thompson handed me 
a letter which he had wi-itten me, on aversion of the case which he had 
heard from his son and others. . He supposed, then, that the servant 
had been interrogated before the Faculty. He writes as follows : 

Washington^ D C. Feb. 19, 1860. 

Dr. F. a. P. Barnard— 3/// Dear Sir : Nothing could have taken 
me more by surprise than the difficulty now thrown in your way. I 
hoped, most sincerely, you would fmd the time to pass this way on your 
return from Philadelphia I wished to hear what was the matter now 
up. But, on Friday evening, Macon, Mr. Sheeg^g, and Mr. Beanland, 
from Oxford, arrived. I heai'd from them their understanding of the 



28 

matter, and on their version of the stor}' I am wholl}' at a loss to un- 
derstand your accusers. Your fault is that you received information, 
from your servant girl, which irfiplicated a student, and you acted on 
that information to reach the truth ; and this is set down as showing 
your free-soil proclivities. If this be so, I am the worst free soiler in the 
State : I am a downright abolitionist. No man strikes my negro that 
I do not hear his story. 'I will listen to my negro's grievances. Be- 
fore God and man I believe this to be my duty. No man has a right 
to touch him or her without my consent, and he who would not do the 
same would be despised by every man in Oxford. 

The whole matter, as these young men relate it to me, is so absurd 
that lean scarcely credit their report. But I must insist that you be 
not moved be these things. Have moral courage enough to stand by 
your post and do your whole duty. Such trials will onl}" prove your 
firmness and worth, and the mischief will fall on the heads of your ad- 
versaries. Y4)ur Friend, 

J. THOMPSON," 



Gov. McRae expressed to me similar sentiments. I might, therefore, 
admit the charges literally, if they were true, and still defend them on 
the best Southern authority. I do not admit them, Lecause they are 
not true. 

Dr. Barnard here announced to the Board that on his part, he had no 
further testimony to offer. 



Oxford, Mississippi, March 8, 1860. 
I, Wra. F. Stearns, as official reporter in the case, do hereby certify 
that the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcript of the testimony 
given in before the Board of Trustees of the University of Mississippi, 
on the 1st and 2d instants, upon the investigation, at the request of l3r. 
F. A. P. Barnard, Chancellor of the University, of the charges then and 
previously preferred against him by Dr. H. Pv. Branham ; all the oral 
testimony, (except my own, and (hat of Prof. Geo. W* Carter, which 
was reduced to writing by Mr. Clapp.) having been taken down by my- 
self, and mostly read over to and approved by the witnesses in the pre- 
sence of Dr. Branham. WM. F. STEAKNS, 

j Eeporter. 



March 2nd, 1860. 

His Excellency, J. J. Pettus, Governor of the State of Mississippi, 
and e/x cffido President of the Board of Trustees of the University, 
this day appeared and took his seat with the other members of the 
Board, who were mentioned as being present yesterday ; and the testi- 
mony taken before his arrival was sul^^mitted to his examination. 

The taking of the testimony bein?^- concluded after dark. Dr. Branham 
made h lew remarks, but declined to discuss the merits of the case ; 
when Dr. Barnard addressed the Board at some length, but purposely 
abstained, he said, from making any comments upon the evidence. 

Dr. Branham having no desire to say any thing further, he and Dr. 
BaiTiard retired and left the Board to its deliberations. 

Whereupon, on motion of Mr. Clark, it was moved, as the sense of 
the Board, that Dr. Barnard be acquitted of all the charges against him ; 
and, ihe yeas and nays being called for, the .'•aid mt lion was carried by 
the following vote : 



29 

Yeas — Messrs. Pettus, (President) Clayton, Davis, Clark, Ventress, 
Young, Dowd, Pegues, Brown, Clapp and Howry — 11. 
Nays — None. 

On motion of Mr. Clark it was then moved, as the sense of the Board, 
' that our confidence in Dr. Barnard is increased rather than diminished 
in consequence of this investigation ; and, the yeas and nays being called 
for, the said motion was carried by the same unanimous vote above sta- 
ted. 

• A committee, consisting of Messrs. Clayton, Clapp and Pettus, was 
then, on motion of Judge Clayton, appointed to draw up resolutions em- 
bodying the decisions just made by the Board; and that committee, 
through Judge Clayton, its chairman, made the following report : — 

"The committee to draw up resolutions embodying the decisions of 
the Board upon the charges preferred against Dr. F. A. P. Barnard, the 
Chancellor of the University, report the following : 

Besplved, That the charges are, in their opinion, wholly unsustained 
by the evidence, and that the said F. A. P. Barnard stands fully and 
honorably acquitted of every charge brought against him. 

Resolved, That after a patient hearing and investigation of all the tes- 
timony in the case, we as Trustees and as Southern men, have found 
our confidence in the ability and integrity of the Chancellor, and his fit- 
ness for his position, increased rather than diminished, and declare our 
full conviction that his labors are doing great service to the cause of edu- 
cation and science, and placing the reputation of the University upon 
an immovable basis." 

The said report having been received and agreed to, the said two re- 
solutions were then unanimously adopted by the Board. 
On motion of Judge Clayton, it was 

Resolved, That the Secretary inform Prof. W. F. Stearns that he is 
required, as a part of his duty as reporter in this case, to furnish, at as 
early a day as practicable, the testimony given in this case, together 
with the written documents introduced by any of the witnesses, to the 
Secretary of the Board, to be by him filed and preserved amongst the 
records of this Board. 

I have compared the foregoing with the record in my possession and 
find it correct. J. M. HOWRY, Sec'y of the Board. 



APPENDIX. 

The proof of the fact established by tl>e following statement — that 
H., after his trial, never affected, among his fellow-students, to deny 
his guilt — was ready to be adduced before the Board of Trustees on 
the 2d of March ; and the Board, and Dr. Branham, were distinctly 
informed at the time that I could make the proof, and by whom I 
could make it. But I did not then ' Meve it to be necessary, for my 
vindication before the Board, that I snould bring forward the testimony; 
and, accordingly, knowing how generally s udeuts are disinclined to 
inculpate their companions, I forbore to introduce this positive proof of 
the guilt of the accused. 

Now that an appeal to the people is threatened to be taken from the 
decision of the Board, I feel that I am entitled to the benefit of this 
testimony-, and I therefore append it here. F. A. P. BAllNAUD. 

Univ. of Miss., March 19, 18G0. 

University of Mississirn, Oxford, March 19, 1859. 

I was one of the witnesses who were examined before the Faculty 



80 

upon the trial, in May last, of the student who was accused of having 
beaten one of the female servants of Dr. Barnard. Directly after the 
trial, the accused told me that he had done what he was charged with, 
but not at the precise hour charged. 

I make this statement as an act of justice to Dr. Barnard, because 
it has been intimated that the student accused was guiltless of the 
charge preferred against him. KIN LOCH FALCON EE. 



Ar.g.US^* 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 773 626 




y^<>^^^^ 




■s*. 



/ts.^'nfHfi/ 



